politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Reminder that the Civil War wasn't because Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.
He repeatedly said he had no desire to do that.
The flashpoint was the southern states wanted to force northern states to return escaped slaves, and the feds said a state couldn't force another state to follow their state laws.
And we're still having the same argument apparently.
Conservative states have always wanted to force their laws on liberal states. Because they see their state residents as property/serfs that the ruling conservatives control.
The South believed that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery. Even if your claim is that true that Lincoln didn’t want to, you must remember that “perspective is reality”.
No, the leaders of the South told the citizens of the South that was going to happen, and that they were on the side of "state rights"...
Because that would get the most people to fight for them in a Civil War....
When the two sides are saying two different things, why are you choosing to believe the traitors word over Lincolns?
He explicitly said in in his inauguration speech that he wasn't going to outlaw slavery, and he kept saying it until the Civil War was halfway over...
Why do you believe conservative lies from over a century ago?
Because I believe the south’s word because it’s the truth: The war was about Slavery, which is why they wanted to secede from the union. They wanted to keep human bondage till the end of time.
Thank god we won, I just wish we killed more of them, though.
Shit, accidentally deleted when I meant to edit. My bad.
Was going to add "halfway over" instead of over because Lincoln never mentioned outlawing slavery till the civil war was halfway over.
But I don't get listening to the conservative lies over what was actually happening.
Do you think 1/6 was Republicans trying to save an election from being stolen?
That clearly wasn't what happened, but that's what conservatives claim.
And you apparently want to believe anything they say
Dude, you deleted your entire comment and are trying to frame the guy like if he's believing GOP talking points. OP disagreed that it wasn't about state rights, and it was about slavery. And now you're here saying he's believing lies? You're the liar, my guy.
I did, like I said I did...
Because the delete and edit buttons are tiny on a phone and right next to each other...
But after all the insults you've thrown out this morning, I'm just going to block you.
I was hoping just ignoring and not responding to you would be enough, but apparently it's not.
Because you're a liar? Good riddance.
Now you’re asking off topic questions, we’re talking about the civil war here.
But to supplement you, no, I do not believe the election was stolen. Now let’s get on back to the civil war.
Cool
When Lincoln and the traitors disagreed about why the civil war started (after it started) and we have actual proof from Lincoln saying he wasn't interested in federally banning slavery ..
Why are you taking the words of the traitors over Lincoln?
I thought the modern analogy would help, but I think it just confused you more unfortunately
I remember you from the last time this topic came up. Homie, I mean this as genuinely as possible, I'm honest to God trying to help; I think you should consider taking some communications or public speaking lessons or something. There's a lot of good books or resources on YouTube on the matter if classes don't make sense for you. You kind of just come across as a troll. Idk if that's on purpose, but that's why people react so badly to what you're saying. It's not your ideas, it's you, it's how you communicate.
Responding with an ad hominem is pathetic. Stay on topic or fuck off with insults.
Ironic.
Yes, it is ironic that I have to point it out.
Sometimes a man’s character in an argument must be taken to account, depending on the context.
Example: A Neo-Nazi arguing about racial science. I personally don’t think anyone should give that guy the time of day.
They shouldn't give him the time of day because he's WRONG, not because he's a Nazi. ... I know that's a difficult sentence to parse because Nazis are wrong on basically everything, but it is VERY important.
But we’re saying he’s wrong because of his character and his character may inherently lead to some beliefs that are… incompatible with a sane society.
The point is, Nazis are bad because they logically and imperically think really fucking stupid things and want to do really bad things.
It should not EVER matter what label someone attaches to themselves. It should only matter if what they want is backed by evidence and reality and ideally some compassion and grace. That simply is not true of Nazis. They're bad because they're stupid monsters who are wrong. It shouldn't matter if they all start calling themselves activists or take over the Libertarian label. Their ideas and desires are wrong.
Or...
Maybe seeing people still falling for conservative propaganda from over a century ago is a little frustrating considering how conservative propaganda literally just resulted in another attempt at overthrowing the democratically elected government of America...
Maybe, just maybe, some things are worth getting upset about
I understand that it's impossible to tell if someone is being genuine on the internet, so I'm begging you to break out Hanlon's Razor and assume that I'm just stupid instead of malicious.
Look, if you wanna be upset, by all means, knock yourself out, you're going to unironically have a great time on the internet. If you want to do something productive and actually persuade people instead of just get worked up, then it would absolutely be worth your time to work on persuasive writing and speech.
It says a lot that your issue isn't any of the people still falling for conservative propaganda...
But that I'm not being persuasive enough, hell, if that's your only problem, wouldn't a better use of your time using your superior communication skills to help them understand?
But I'll never have to try and explain this to you again, if you don't want to see my comments either, it's a very simple process for you as well
Takes less than a second
I don't have a problem, I'm trying to be helpful.
So, pointing out that the Civil War was about Slaves is conservative propaganda? How does that make any sense?
Because that's not what actually happened...
It was because the south wanted the feds to force the north to return escaped slaves, even tho they were no longer slaves once they got to the north...
I genuinely don't understand why people don't understand why those aren't the same things.
The topic at the time did involve slavery, but what the south started the civil war about was the feds refusing to force northern states to enforce laws that didn't exist in the northern states.
It wasn't to keep slavery legal in south. Because Lincoln wouldn't stop saying he had no desire to federally ban slavery, because he thought that would be enough to appease the south and avoid civil war.
Bringing us full circle to why the details still matter:
Appeasing conservative governments never works, they'll never be happy unless they get everything they want. So why meet them halfway?
The line will need to be drawn eventually anyways
I see your point, but to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is as stupid as holocaust deniers.
From how I read the comment above yours, it doesn't imply the civil war wasn't about slavery.
It was about the south wanting to strip state rights away from states that disagree with them.
The topic at the time was they thought once someone was a slave, they're always a slave. Even if they're in a state where slavery is illegal. So in that respect, it was about slavery.
But they're literally doing the same thing right now by trying to criminalize someone crossing state lines to get an abortion.
Which is why the specifics matter.
If they start another civil war about their residents traveling out of state for abortions where they're legal, you could say that civil war was about abortion, but that's not really accurate.
Because just like back then, Dems aren't trying to force Southern states to change their laws. Just saying one state can't change another states laws.
The root cause is conservative states trying to force liberal states to follow conservative laws from a different state.
He implied it wasn't.
I guess it's in how you read it. I don't read it as such. Edit: maybe it's because I take the entire comment into consideration instead of just one line in the entire comment.
Only if you stop reading after the first sentence. They only implied that the war wasn't fought over abolition, not that it wasn't about slavery.
The above clearly implies that slavery, and how it was enforced by federal law, was the reason the civil war was started.
No they didn't. At all. They said it wasn't about BANNING slavery, not that it wasn't about slavery in general. They very specifically said it was about southern states wanting to force northern states to return slaves when those states disn't even have legal slavery.
It was still about slavery and "states rights" even in what they said, just not the south reeing about a national ban - at first.
That's the entire fucking reason the "states rights" argument has ANY air, because it DID start as a despute on how far a state's laws went. That doesn't mean it was magically not all revolving around slavery.
And, at the time, the Supreme Court agreed. In one of their most reviled and embarassing decisions. Let's watch them do it again and again now.